Skip to comments.
Govt. Tells Singles No Sex Till You're 30
ABSNews Health ^
| 10/31/06
| Brian Hartman
Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by steve-b
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 — If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.
That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....
"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: genx; government; nannystate; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
To: alice_in_bubbaland
I have less sex now that I'm married! What's going on here?
41
posted on
11/01/2006 11:03:53 AM PST
by
miliantnutcase
("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
To: BritExPatInFla
You can tell me whatever you want. I am married, therefore I do not fall into the age group restriction.
42
posted on
11/01/2006 11:04:34 AM PST
by
Trygar
To: steve-b
no sex when you're married either.
43
posted on
11/01/2006 11:04:39 AM PST
by
Rakkasan1
((Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!))
I'm only 21, no way I'm waiting another 9 years to bed a woman.
44
posted on
11/01/2006 11:04:44 AM PST
by
wastedyears
("By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail." - Benjamin Franklin)
To: unspun
45
posted on
11/01/2006 11:04:56 AM PST
by
50sDad
(The GOP dumped Foley, the Dems kept Clinton. See the difference?)
To: alice_in_bubbaland
"LOL! I find this hard to believe! Is this the dim spin?"
LMAO do ya think???? Dims response to abstinence education probably. Like their mantra aout not visiting ND because they will get raped, and won't be ab;e to get an abortion.
Loonie!
46
posted on
11/01/2006 11:05:00 AM PST
by
gidget7
(Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
To: Bigg Red
Critics of the guidelines, such as James Wagoner, president of a group whose top goal is a "society that views sexuality as normal and healthy," say such statistics illustrate that most people in their 20s are already having sex.
Can't have THAT, can we?
To: miliantnutcase
48
posted on
11/01/2006 11:05:40 AM PST
by
alice_in_bubbaland
(New Jersey gets the corrupt government it deserves!)
To: miliantnutcase
I have less sex now that I'm married! What's going on here? The words I do cause a woman to not want sex anymore. They already have what they want why perform anymore.
49
posted on
11/01/2006 11:06:06 AM PST
by
JackDanielsOldNo7
(On guard until the seal is broken)
To: balch3
Anything but abstinence until marriage is immoral, ineffective, and dangerous.
Please don't tell me that masturbation falls into that "immoral, ineffective, and dangerous" category.
To: steve-b
Not a requirement. Just sound advice. If you're unmarried and having sexual intercourse, you're doing something stupid. It shouldn't be somehow "bad" for the government to take an anti-stupidity position.
It beats the heck out of the public schools telling little kids to play with themselves--which happens on a regular basis in so-called "sex ed" classes.
51
posted on
11/01/2006 11:06:51 AM PST
by
Antoninus
(Ruin a Democrat's day...help re-elect Rick Santorum.)
To: Andonius_99
hmmmm...is this an attempt for the government to legislate morality? since when has this been a governmental concern? Is it immoral to kill someone and take their stuff? We should get those ancient, hidebound laws off the books.
52
posted on
11/01/2006 11:07:19 AM PST
by
50sDad
(The GOP dumped Foley, the Dems kept Clinton. See the difference?)
To: Trygar
They aren't fixing anything. They are addressing a problem and giving education about the problem to those that want to listen. Granted. What I'm wondering is why this is considered a legitimate task for government.
53
posted on
11/01/2006 11:07:32 AM PST
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Brilliant
"They are JUST spending $50 million to persuade you."
Excuse me! Can I have MY money back?
To: steve-b
Pigs will fly before this happens. Hope they don't waste too much money on this one!
55
posted on
11/01/2006 11:08:20 AM PST
by
dforest
(be careful you don't become what you hate the most)
To: RockinRight
Should government mandate that? I think not.
Where in this article, or the law for that matter, does it say that the government is "mandating" this?
56
posted on
11/01/2006 11:08:54 AM PST
by
Antoninus
(Ruin a Democrat's day...help re-elect Rick Santorum.)
To: miliantnutcase
57
posted on
11/01/2006 11:09:04 AM PST
by
Alex1977
To: dpwiener
With my luck, I'd fall in love with someone one year younger than me.
58
posted on
11/01/2006 11:09:38 AM PST
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Trygar
I realize that. I guess I have a view that the government should stay out of it completely.
59
posted on
11/01/2006 11:09:55 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(Maintaining a Republican majority is MORE IMPORTANT than your temper tantrum.)
To: Antoninus
LOL! The government wasting $50,000,000 of OUR money on this is the ultimate PRO-stupidity position.
60
posted on
11/01/2006 11:10:11 AM PST
by
steve-b
(It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson